next possible chapter

Book/Chapters/Modern_Woke.md

@@ -0,0 +1,499 @@
+# Modern Woke Negation
+
+Some would say that, since the advent of "woke", a continuous stream of wedges have been driven into the fabric of society such as to drive people away from one another. Others would say that this began with the advent of propaganda or Fascism and Nazism. Yet others would specify Communism, Marxism or Socialism as the point of origin, or even Positivism. What we'd label as a stream of events of this type has likely always been there, and is simply more apparent based on the scale of social relations and information that can reach humanity, coupled with the evolution and availability of logical constructs that can be made use of in order to compel humans to take on a problematic view of each other and the world at large.
+
+In modern times, we are stuck with this term "wokeness" which, as of late, has caused quite a bit of division among those who previously believed themselves as belonging to one portion of a partisan divide that sought to address the issue of "Woke" in society due to it having been identified as a threat to humanity and civilizational progress (progress as net improvements to society, rather than the approach of an eschatological demarcation of our true lives).
+
+In essence, though the fraught term is attacked on the basis of its ambiguity and the tendency of so many to comment on it by supposing that some association or analogy somehow identifies and describes it, it's actually quite simple to understand and though we can, and have, get into the deeper explications, the primary motif always reigns supreme and so let's touch on it again:
+
+*Belief that systemic oppression is the primary mediator of society.*
+
+How do we know it's the primary mediator, and in what context is this relevant? Well it's relevant in our political endeavours, as seen in what we indicate as the right method by which to structure and govern society. And we know it's the primary mediator when one wishes for authoritarian solutions.
+
+## 1. __Gay/Lesbian__
+
+### Constructivist Project
+
+It's difficult to unpack the ideas of comprehensive sex education and how they've produced these dialectics in classrooms and regulatory institutions without taking them in the context of the Queer praxis by which academia and international organizations have come to demand their inclusion. It's especially important to think about this with some of the seemingly more "normal" subjects, such as homosexuality, which by now almost everyone agrees is a natural phenomenon and not something that's worth groveling over (we shouldn't have a say in who people choose as their romantic partners, generally speaking, so long as they are adults  making their own choices), because Queer theory focuses on attacking normativity, but Queer praxis as common activism works through confusing normies by attempting to initiate them into a Queer worldview by pretending there is a controversy over something completely normal, like homosexuality, and using that as an implement to defend something completely abnormal, like pedophilia.
+
+How do we know this? Because Queer scholars and activists can't help but attempt to sexualize children and criticize the notion that they should be regarded as innocent:
+
+> "It is a rather amazing fact that, of the very many dimensions along which the genital activity of one person can be differentiated frame that of another (dimensions along which include preference for certain acts, certain zones or sensations, certain physical types, a certain frequency, certain symbolic investments, certain relations of age or power, a certain species, a certain number of participants, etc. etc. etc.), precisely one, the gender of object choice, emerged from the turn of the century, and has remained, as the dimension denoted by the now ubiquitous category of "sexual orientation." This is not a development that would have been foreseen from the viewpoint of the fin de siècle itself, where a rich stew of male algolagnia, child-love, and autoeroticism, to mention no more of its components, seemed to have as indicative a [elation as did homosexuality" - Eve Sedgwick (Epistemology of the Closet)
+
+> "The experiences of art photographer Jacqueline Livingston exemplify the climate created by the child porn panic. An assistant professor of photography at Cornell University, Livingston was fired in 1978 after exhibiting pictures of male nudes which included photographs of her seven-year-old son masturbating. Ms. Magazine, Chrysalis, and Art News all refused to run ads for Livingston's posters of male nudes. At one point, Kodak confiscated some of her film, and for several months, Livingston lived with the threat of prosecution under the child pornography laws. The Tompkins County Department of Social Services investigated her fitness as a parent. Livingston's posters have been collected by the Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan, and other major museums. But she has paid a high cost in harassment and anxiety for her efforts to capture on film the uncensored male body at different ages."
+
+> "It is easy to see someone like Livingston as a victim of the child porn wars. It is harder for most people to sympathize with actual boy-lovers. Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boy-lovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone for their erotic orientation. Consequently, the police have feasted on them. Local police, the FBI, and watchdog postal inspectors have joined to build a huge apparatus whose sole aim is to wipe out the community of men who love underaged youth. In twenty years or so, when some of the smoke has cleared, it will be much easier to show that these men have been the victims of a savage and undeserved witch hunt. A lot of people will be embarrassed by their collaboration with this persecution, but it will be too late to do much good for those men who have spent their lives in prison." - Gayle Rubin (Thinking Sex)
+
+> "As Duschinsky (2013) notes, “Discourses of childhood innocence seem to have an unimpeachable moral status. Yet scrutiny of these discourses indicates that they may in fact be regarded as a potentially exclusionary form of social practice, linked to little-acknowledged and problematic social effects” (p. 764). While such social effects have not gone entirely unquestioned, most critical work on the topic of childhood innocence, much of which has been produced by Australian scholars, has focused on the regulation of children’s sexual agency (Egan and Hawkes, 2009; Faulkner, 2010; Robinson, 2013). Here, I take up the notion of childhood innocence to examine how, in the US context, it regulates race relations by producing a particular “childhood” that perpetuates White supremacy." - Julie Garlen (Interrogating innocence: “Childhood” as exclusionary social practice)
+
+#### Childhood Innocence
+
+Why would they criticize innocence?
+
+Innocence denotes some societal expectation and, given the assumed circumstance of an oppressive society which enforces structural norms to maintain the current permutation of social stratification, any expectation based on social norms is deemed liable to be an aspect of the oppressive structure reinforcing itself, leading to reification of beliefs which cause members of that society to become unable to discern the manner in which the oppressive affects themselves and others or, put another way, induces a false consciousness.
+
+Thus, if the assumption is that children are innocent and non-sexual, then one must counter the potential that such an assumption produces oppression by bringing it into conflict with its opposite formulation: a child with a sexuality who is either not innocent, or the notion of a sexual child whereby there is no such concept of innocence on the basis that our very understanding of what it is to be innocent is itself an oppressive imposition.
+
+How can a child have a sexual orientation? Well the assumption is that a child not expressly gay is heterosexual (according to Queer theory), but is that really the case? Sexuality suggests sexual attraction, but a child is not reaching states of sexual arousal, and far less a state of sexual arousal associated with reproduction. There may be some inclination towards romantic feelings, but these are not yet compared in a context where they can be identified or their ramifications understood. A reasonable understanding or attitude would be to say that children are not yet developed in a manner or to the degree that sexual arousal manifests, and that children may be fond of one another but that the relation and dynamic of that fondness is not sexual whatsoever and is, thus, much simpler and of less impactful consequences (particularly with respect to commitment and accountability).
+
+>"In 1991, Eve Sedgwick (1991) published an essay that may be said to have initiated contemporary queer theory’s consideration of childhood as a site of heteronormative - Hannah Dyer (Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development)
+
+It's unfortunate that this needs to be stated, but perhaps this is the sort of cyclical issue in human evolution that needs to be touched on every so often to make sure we're not trying to aim towards the catastrophic, but it seems quite apparent that it is a common perspective among Queer theorists that childhood is an opportunity to intervene in the formation of various unconscious forms of oppression which come to be seen as "normal", such as humans believing that heterosexuality, which is an aspect of sexual reproduction (and thus the reason why the human species has existed for more than one single generation) is a normal practice, and that this view of its normalcy leads to the oppression of homosexuals. Now, the focus on homosexuality as a domain of oppressive peoples has come to be a bit antiquated, as the insistence on viewing gay and lesbian as the alternatives to heterosexual living have come to be labelled as a form of hegemonic oppression in its own rite. What rite is that, and ho w might it be referenced? As homonormativity, of course, and though it might sound jarring to some, it's become a common enough concept which makes sense when you realize that all forms of collectivism are aiming at the same thing: removing limits from existence en route to a state of being where the human is not going to be denied any possible form of existence. To flesh that out just a bit more, it might be best to describe homonormativity as the forced categorization and annulment of Queer liberatory potential into structurally enforced roles. That is to say, homosexual identity as a limited and assimilated role which mimics and adheres to cisheteronormative practices.
+
+#### Agency and Accountability
+
+> "There is a paradox that arises when the child’s rights to agency and participation in the world are secured while it is suggested that they are innocent and lacking complexity. I invoke this dilemma to highlight what is at stake when queer theory speaks about childhood as social construction but forecloses a consideration of actual children. In not thinking about children’s material rights, there are issues that get forgotten. As I write in Canada, I am considering, for example, the history of residential schools and their devastating effects on children’s lives as just one issue that may be elided or repressed when queer theory evades recognition of how the preservation of innocence (in the name of rights) has not protected all children equally." - Hannah Dyer (Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development)
+
+> "My argument begins with the premise that developmental theory and its attendant model of Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) can be destructive to some children’s imaginative and social capacities when not attuned to their possible queer presents and futures." - Hannah Dyer (Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development)
+
+There is quite the dialectical juxtaposition being presented here, in that on the idea is to introduce children to comprehensive sexual discourse in order to remove the idea that they are innocent because it keeps them from having true agency. But agency for what? For sex? Well, maybe that's just a side effect that the Queer theorist isn't too concerned about, but the real focus is that some children have had rights violated thus children shouldn't be selectively protected from having their rights violated, and how is this done? By giving them every right. By having supposed that some children have the right to innocence, we've also not afforded them the complexity to have agency in how all children have a role to play in addressing issues of social justice. Put another way, introducing children to idea that they are sexual beings early on will help them address social justice issues and prevent the possible violation of rights that might otherwise be experienced by their more "marginalized" peers.
+
+> "Early childhood studies are based on the hegemony of what is scientifically known about children’s development without adequate attention being paid to how childhood is socially and culturally constructed.
+...
+The work of Butler (1993) creates a space to challenge, shift, create discomfort, and make noise about the gendering of children in early childhood programs. In Bodies that Matter, Butler suggests:
+    To what extent, then, has the performative “queer” operated along side, as the sanction that performs the heterosexualization of the social bond, perhaps it also comes into play precisely as the shaming taboo which “queers” those who resist or opposed that social form as well as those who occupy it without hegemonic social sanction. (p. 226)
+In essence, we do (perform) gender whether we want to or not and implicate children who may not fit normative expectations of what we expect as acceptable behavior. Kumashiro (2002) has argued that the norms of schooling and its manifestations can be perceived as oppressive, arguing, “changing oppression than requires constantly working against this norm” (p. 11). The propensity to focus on developmentally appropriate practice seems overbearing and indeed oppressive. Children’s identities would be better understood through a critical deconstruction of Western theories of child development and of the normative
+pedagogical frameworks that dominate early childhood practice." - Zeenat Janmohamed (Queering Early Childhood Studies: Challenging the Discourse of Developmentally Appropriate Practice)
+
+A sensible understanding of a child's agency and the level of accountability that is imposed on them by their family, peers and society at large is already well established in Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Early Childhood Education, but this has been the focus of criticism by Queer theorists who believe that Early Childhood Education should explicitly attempt to "Queer" development through creating different norms, reifying Gender Identities and conceiving of a child's identity through critical deconstruction, which is to say, to view it through a lense of understanding how a child's development is an opportunity for applying Critical Theory to deconstruct the social environment in hopes of producing something different which, based on the history of Critical Theory, and its origins, would mean producing Socialism en route to a Communist Utopia.
+
+Of course, as much as Queer theorists talk about giving agency to children and making us all accountable, the accountability is only insofar as we are able to potentiate collectivism. At the moment that a form of accountability is discerned as tacitly indicated through the overarching proposals of the Queer theorist, they will deny any form of individual accountability or commitment and move towards the reification of a group by claiming everyone is responsible for all the world and that, that this representation as an understanding of the real is an actual form of accountability that can be concretized, as opposed to an individual accountability which is a form of fallacy due to a contradiction in the outcomes of different children. In this way, we see again that the eschatological endpoint through a Hegelian process of becoming both removes accountability and makes the individual vulnerable to being consumed as a fuel cell to be discarded in the historical engine.
+
+To summarize, though the norm is to understand children as bearing some form of inherent innocence, the collectivist, particularly one who is implementing a dialectical methodology descendant to Hegelian thought, will say that the innocence is an illusion derived from:
+
+As we are simply used to engaging this concept as though it were some form of a universal norm, we perpetually fall into a form of fatalistic reasoning about the limits and simplicity of children, which negates our opportunity to grow and evolve as a society towards some of the Utopian destinations that were previously identified by some of our greatest thinkers. The fatalistic expectation is imposed through conservative reactions to any attempt which tries to lift up our children from the endless cycle of capitalistic and normative conditioning and is furthermore a marker of privilege in the sense that those who participate in this way haven't the critical consciousness afforded to them from possessing a more marginalized perspective.
+
+As a result, they reify a false consciousness because the ascription of innocence is actually positioning them to reinforce the cisheteronormative structure which they intuit as holding them up in an advantageous manner in the hierarchy of social strata. Our failure to recognize that acceptance of identities has been an inauthentic and lost opportunity for social justice is therefore our borne of the selfish dispositions which repress humanity and keep us from truly adopting the knowledge necessary for us to thrive.
+
+## 2. __Non-Binary Negation__
+
+- Biological essentialism
+- Grounding of human reality
+- Questioning evolution
+
+Biological essentialism is instantly in the crosshair because whatever criteria was previously used and believed to be sufficient for identifying real, actual aspects of human biology are being made to seem unproven, inaccurate and insufficiently argued for. The reasons for this are of both conscious and unconscious origins, and this is argued with the perspective that those in favour of a biologically essentialist view of the world are assumed to follow through in having been influenced by entities which favour those same things as well, such as a history of capitalistic exploitation to keep industry moving and demand increasing, as well as the imposition of hierarchy, particularly as a consequence of Patriarchy.
+
+One of the best representations of an argument which, though rather ambiguous to the uninitiated observer, has carried mighty weight in helping to establish a foundation of discourse in Gender and Queer studies, and their related activist endeavours, is a quote we already touched on earlier by Judith Butler. Here's a quick breakdown of some of the primary points she puts forward in her problematization of sex:
+
+> "Originally intended to dispute the biology-is-destiny formulation"
+- It's one thing to say that you're doing employing a radical premise in order to analyze something differently, but it's quite another thing to say that the thing you wish to analyze was itself the employment of a radical premise to begin with, so things are incredibly dubious right off the bat. It would be much more sensible to say "gender was originally intended to describe the corresponding behaviours, social norms and expectations that we associate with people of a given sex".
+
+> "Taken to its logical limit, the sex/gender distinction suggests a radical discontinuity between sexed bodies and culturally constructed genders... When the constructed status of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex, gender itself becomes a free-floating artifice, with the consequence that man and masculine might just as easily signify a female body as a male one."
+- Here she is saying that the very fact humans came up with a concept of gender and gave it a name tells us that sex and gender should, in fact, eventually come to be seen as things that are not related. She would push back on that and say that they are related and that the concept of gender worked as a good start towards freeing us from the imprisoning aspect of our attitude towards the sexed body, but that the fact of us having come up with this concept demonstrates that we are trying to break free of the limiting ideas about human sex."
+
+> "If the immutable character of sex is contested, perhaps this construct called “sex” is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all."
+- Quite simply, that we came up with a sex/gender distinction contradicts the immutability of sex, and therefore the distinctions of sex are themselves contradictions. 
+
+Judy is somehow presupposing that anything we conceive of is revealing some great truth about ourselves and the world, but humans go down useless rabbit-holes all the time, and though there's something to be said for the pain and struggle of some of the hard lessons we teach ourselves, there's no good reason to assume that we have to learn every difficult or even stupid lesson that we possibly can put ourselves through, as there's always an infinite set of additional ones to undertake. While we can theorize as to what reasons we possibly might have had for coming up with concepts such as gender, whether there are competing concepts referenced by that term, which ones are more legitimate, and so forth, it's much more obvious as to why we humans created the means by which to describe sex and the sex differences, and regardless of what psycho-social behaviours we can associate with either of them, the striking and unmistakably distinct physiological differences which correspond with completely different reproductive systems are themselves self-evident. As such, the whole reason we identified the concept of male and female, which definitely refer to sex, regardless of whether you also believe in the concept of "gender", is because we have to deal with our biology. We need an intelligent way of referencing to the fact that there is a difference, as well as a way of referring to the practice by which we find ourselves in the complicated circumstance of a pregnancy, and so forth.
+
+We understand that reproduction is possible just as we know that there is only one particular modality which one would understand as being relevant to the reality of what impact sexual reproduction has on them and their lives. A set of effects is a real, non-subjective aspect of reality which every human is liable to deal with and, though we can perform actions which affect what those effects may be, such as, for example, contraceptives and abortions, and the dynamics of how they are expressed as they occur, which includes everything from nutrition and endocrinological treatments to composing a birthing environment, any intended destination sought through doing so is not something otherwise extant outside of human intervention and only as advanced technological exploit. Nature, with the constructs, formulations and behaviours which arise from its biologically mediated determinants, does not include any of these such endpoints, permutations and phenomena, so as much as we criticize the social constructions which we hope to be corrected, whether from the standpoint of the Queer theorist who takes offense through suspicion of meaning attributed to body, or the individualist of a classical Liberal disposition who declares their "anti-Wokeness", we must ask if the problem hoped to be corrected is not the folly of human concoction, be it social implements that are structurally oppressive, and not the post-naturalist mystical theorizing as are Queer and Trans activism, but one of nature itself.
+
+Indeed, we fight against nature all the time, which is treacherous, brutal and unforgiving, simply to survive in comfortable enclaves while using the most unnatural technological developments that could ever be imagined, so rather than spending all our time fighting about whether the infinite genders are something legitimate, we could simply be having more intelligent discussions about the projects, targets and effects of transhumanistic development will actually bring, sans the context of an unconscious conspiracy to socially oppress.
+
+## 3. __Two-Spirit Negation__
+
+- Universality of Consciousness
+- Diversity
+- Minorities
+
+2-Spirit as a concept, its use in Queer theory, Critical Colonial theory, anthropology in the wake of its having been infused with Critical Theory, Critical Cultural studies, and so forth, is one the more distasteful and infuriating forms of abusive, anti-human negation processes. It presents as some sort of advanced, sensitive and evolved form of collectivist philosophy which, in making a more explicit contact with ideas of divinity, the sacred and cosmological substance, beckons a totalitarian sensibility as soon as it becomes a concept to be enumerated, championed and described by the state. That state bodies invoke and enforce its being referenced in its own infrastructure, in human cultural practices it recognizes, and in privacy companies which wish to maintain legitimate in the business circles falling under the jurisdiction of the state.
+
+This isn't simply totalitarian potential whose ideas could yield different results, depending on certain conditions, but a concept whose recognition by anybody with legislative authority is incoherent except in the context of conceptual enforcement. There is no "meaningful" action that any government can take to ensure that the society of its jurisdiction accommodates or "respects" this concept, except through policy concerning what expressions may take place in that society.
+
+If there are 2 spirit people and other non-2 spirit people, then necessarily it's the case that the 2 spirit people have a type of knowledge that cannot be attained by the non-2 spirit people. And it's by no means necessary to tell some person that they shouldn't believe they have 2 spirits, or that their essence is the product of 2 spirits, or 3 spirits, or an infinite set of spirits, or all spirit, or half of all spirit, or what have you. A human can choose to believe that they are composed of energies and inhabited by demons or that their soul was formed because of the existence of a particular animal, or that they themselves are reincarnated, or that they're somehow a seed of the creator or that they are even the creator themselves. They are fine to believe any and all of that, and it's not really necessary, or morally palatable, to enforce what people believe in any capacity, especially individually, and even when it comes to the obscene, but it is quite a different sort of thing to have an authority which is responsible for the laws of the land to say that there are 2 different types of people and that they are differentiated by something spiritual, because now the state who has jurisdiction over the land and who wields the legal and enforcement apparatus by which to arbitrate conflicts amongst men is saying that there is a secret epistemology that some of those men can understand and be respected for and others not, thus obliterating the concept that humans each individually have consciousness that is equivalent in its capacity for reason, morality and viability.
+
+"But isn't it just the same thing as saying people are religious, and referring to people by their religion or the name of their belief system?"
+
+No, it's not the same thing at all. We can say that they are believers of such a thing, but to say that our own epistemology now needs to accord with the belief system that they purport to follow, and to consider it a civic duty, a professional requirement, and even a civic or criminal offense to refer to them by their religious title is not the same as enumerating the religions that people in a jurisdiction happen to follow. Having all citizens assist in the practice of their religion, when enforced by the state, becomes a religion of the state - not necessarily the religion that others are being directed to curate their words, thoughts and actions for, but the belief system indicated tacitly through the state positing that its direction about language, action and beliefs for a social endpoint must be followed as a moral directive, rather than for consistency in abstaining from infringing on laws which protect people's individual rights. Humans don't have a right to maintain their own belief in the fact of a world which might pose challenges to the maintenance of that belief.
+
+In having the state acknowledge that that its citizens inherently have access to different knowledge, and while knowing that this state is the legal authority in a particular jurisdiction, it then follows not just that there are different types of people, but that the relevance and means of their differentiation is by virtue of the content of their knowledge, which corresponds by type. In doing so, the state has now formalized a declaration that knowledge, faculty and capability with different knowledge are contingent with the means by which the enumeration of their differentiated types is qualified. Since this is not necessarily qualified by individual experience, which would correspond with a universal capacity for logic and reason accessible to each individual, the means is now set in identity as per the modes of evaluation associated with the theory of identity being utilized.
+
+Since the models of identity being employed are postulated as pertinent on the basis of their position in a structural hierarchy of oppression, drawing from Critical Race theory, Queer theory, Feminism and other formulations sharing in the lineage of Critical theory, and since their qualification is on systems of power wherein the power is derived through social relations, it becomes the presentation of the body as per the perception of others which constitutes the means by which the individual whose person's body is evaluated through which knowledge and capability are designated. This qualification is not in the genetics, the skin colour itself, and certainly not the experience of the individual, but something completely externalized which cannot itself be verified, hence moving the expertise of the evaluation to the theorist best recognized by the state.
+
+In having defined the limit and content of what can be known by people in this way, we eliminate the notion that there is shared capacity for knowledge, universal access to reason, and a means by which we can come to understand one another.
+
+## 4. __Trans Negation__
+
+- Boys and Girls
+- Men and Women
+
+Though one might prefer to consider the trans phenomenon as being covered under the subject of non-binary, or gender fluid and what have you, there are some different issues that are perhaps easily addressed in speaking about one vs the other, in the sense that though non-binary negates a human being's perception of reality by problematizing biological essentialism, the notion of evolution and some of the fundamental considerations as to what it means to be a human being, the trans phenomenon, though being active in different facets of life and society, bears most of its relevance in negating the concept of a man and a woman and, especially in light of the focus of Trans praxis (which is also Queer praxis), male and female children (boys and girls).
+
+The notion of the transgender, and especially the transgender child, constitutes the negation of boys and girls, as well as men and women, through supplanting the biological essence of sex with the fashioning of social expectations and the understanding that the relevance of a sex-related distinction is through the interest, attention and arousal that can be derived through the gender as a domain of human relations, behaviours and discourses.
+
+Though the trans activist would concede that these things called man and woman do, in fact, exist, but not defining them as the products of or understanding derived through social construction. And why would that be? Because we have given them names.
+
+In naming them, we sought to control, as the fact of the names having been perpetuated through a society wherein inequity exists means that those who succeeded in naming them benefited from the hierarchy of power and, as such, sought control over the meaning of bodies in such a way as to reinforce that hierarchy. For this reason, we must negate their meaning through reifying a meaning that gives control to the oppressed, and the best way to formulate that meaning is by choosing a meaning in line with an oppressed consciousness.
+
+When there is no longer an inclination to think about performing a gender, people will be as they truly are, and this will constitute a double negation in that the process of reifying meaning to divert power and control will have been negated.
+
+As the aforementioned process describes a liberatory process, children have a role to play. Given that they are not free, with the controlled meaning of their bodies already rampant in society, taking on this role in pursuit of liberation is both a moral imperative and their best path to freedom in who they truly are. As their peers and social environment, should it be conducive to liberation, is aware of the liberatory pursuit, the children will be struggled to demonstrate their consciousness.
+
+## State-Constructed Savage
+
+As mentioned before, the grave injustice resulting from the state's enumeration of an identity type is largely on the grounds of the state's assertion that the identity in question suffers in the permutation of social relations found within the region over which it asserts authority.
+
+What does the state know of the concept of Two-Spirit? What it knows is that it accepts certain categorization of people based on activism that has been influenced by academic papers on the subject, and that these papers are from academics in disciplines that have been heavily influenced by Neo-Marxists interested in Critical Colonial / Postcolonial studies, and the concept of identity in the context of Conflict theory, Standpoint epistemology and similar ideas from a very similar set of related ideological frameworks which follow the same logic as Marxist critique, regardless of whether they explicitly associate as being a domain of Marxist thought (some might prefer the term Marxian, in that regard). Though "Two-Spirit" is often professed as a "third gender", the term itself seems formulated through a correspondence of various sources which drew inspiration from creation myths and put forward a term to replace more offensive terms, such as Berdache, which were commonly used in Colonial studies and Anthropology to describe homosexual or sex atypical behaviours observed by those who researched or commented on tribes in what we call the North American region of today.
+
+Even when examining these papers, published in anthropology journals, Gay and Lesbian journals, Radical Feminists journals, Postcolonial journals, and so forth, it's clear that the term was being suggested for use in referring to homosexual men and women living in North American Indian communities. It's only through the Queer praxis of Queer activism that the lines have been "queered" such as to propose that this is now the secret non-dualistic gender which has always existed, and this is usually qualified through comparing it to intersex persons and the notion of Native American "Gods" or mythological figures.
+
+> "institutionalized same sex intimacy was supported by religious beliefs that acknowledged the existence of people (and gods) who were neither entirely male nor entirely female. Because of this, Native American men today are likely to reject such labels as homosexual, gay, or berdache, in favor of two-spirit men." - Terry Tafoya (Native American Two-Spirit Men)
+
+> "the recent general sexual revolution in the United States and the gay liberation movement contributed greatly to the production of Williams’s wide-ranging and fully documented book. It will surprise some, shock some, but almost everyone can learn something new from it. Williams gave me a few surprises. First is the message that berdaches are nearly always homosexuals--with one male partner specializing as recipient of anal intercourse. Another one was the general practice of both male and female berdaches entering into extended, same-sex “marriages.”" - Omer C. Stewart (American Anthropology Volume 89, Issue 4, December 1987 - Commenting on Walter L. Williams (The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture 1986)
+
+> "But with the greater focus on gender and sexuality in anthropology and heightened sensitivity to Native American voices and categories, the term berdache has been criticized (e.g., Jacobs and Thomas 1994:7). As a result alternate terms and categories such as gay, alternate gender, and two-spirit have arisen." - Carolyn Epple (Coming  to terms with Navajo nadleehi: a critique of berdache, "gay," "alternate gender," and "two-spirit")
+
+Epple also comments on the notion of "multiple genders" as though there is something beyond what corresponds with two sexes, but the dualism remains:
+
+> "Thomas (1993) describes four Navajo genders: female-bodied women, male-bodied men, female-bodied nadleehi, and male-bodied nadleehi. In this system male nadleehi' same-sex sexual practices are not equivalent to many present-day Euro-American homosexual or gay practices, since nadleehi partners are of a different gender (usually male-bodied men) than nadleehi, while present-day Western gays and their partners are of the same gender (Thomas 1993:4-5)." - Carolyn Epple (Coming  to terms with Navajo nadleehi: a critique of berdache, "gay," "alternate gender," and "two-spirit")
+
+Though, technically, the term "Two-Spirit" is most attributed as having been first formalized by Albert McLeod, a gay Status-Indian from Manitoba who has done a lot of LGBTQ or 2SLGBTQ advocacy, at the Third Annual Inter-tribal Native American, First Nations, Gay and Lesbian American Conference held in Winnipeg, Canada, in 1990, where a term was specifically sought to replace "berdache", and this event has been corroborated through many sources, it stands to reason that the papers referenced above are in-line with what those attending the conference would have conceived as being the inspiration for the term.
+
+If taking a reasonable and charitable stance on the subject, the term is best described as a religious term, and its use by politically conscious persons who are either politicians, or who are doing political advocacy in institutions are blurring the lines between Queer as a praxis of liberation from cisheteronormativity as a theoretical understanding of oppression derived from sexual identity, and a non-specific reference to the broad understanding that North American Indian communities, in some cases, have creation myths or mythologies involving gods and special beings who relate to this term. The idea that our government can compel its citizens to refer to these things as actual legitimate constructs that are to be tacitly acknowledged as both real and relevant in the context of Social Justice insofar as morality of citizens, and enforcing legally consistent behaviour of citizens is absurd. By taking this step, and many others similar to it, the state is demanding its citizens to reify a specification of identity lest one be deemed hateful, immoral and even, in some cases, guilty of infractions which can escalate to civil offenses that could lead to jail time. That is to say, what may begin as a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act can lead to monetary penalties which, if left unpaid, could theoretically lead to imprisonment. 
+
+Further to hate speech provisions of the Human Rights Act, one could also be argued as having imposed "conversion therapy" on someone by not respecting their proclaimed gender identity, which includes the idea of Two-Spirit identity.
+
+### Enslaved to Validate State Ideology
+
+Intrinsic to the acknowledgment of the concept of Two-Spirit by the state is its authority to proclaim and maintain the technical specification for what that thing is; that is to say, that thing will no longer exist except as per the model provided by the state authority (and an individual's ability to arrange, express, present and be perceived adequately such as to pass continuous evaluation against the state model). Without meeting such a capacity, one then becomes re-ascribed as something else, as chosen by the state or as per a defacto designation which occurs by virtue of entering into conflict with the state.
+
+And if the concept exists as even a subset of another larger category, then it and the implements which evaluate against it become the means by which all designations within the larger category are validated. This includes the category of "human". Put another way, as the state has indicated not only a historical injustice continuing through the citizenry which it governs today, but that there is a moral impetus for those citizens to acknowledge the special insight and abilities of a small subset of its citizens as but one method by which to address the injustice, then meeting this demand becomes a test of the citizen's humanity.
+
+### Drafted as State Enforcer
+
+This isn't only one being evaluated as per the appearance of the body, through meeting rigid criteria for the expression of their form, and the manner in which its perception is interpreted, but because its form now can only serve in a capacity to reify and reinforce the state specification and because it is only legal acknowledgment, one's role must be specifically to ensure the state's conception of the phenomenon is the only one utilized, as anything else is now a form of genocide and erasure (at least by the state's acknowledged description of the phenomenon and the positing of its historical context bearing the sort of relevance which meets the prescriptions given to the citizens of today, its specification, and a need for enforcement of those prescriptions. The state cannot under any circumstance be made to acknowledge a false representation of its citizenry, or it admits to serving something other than its citizenry, such as its own pursuance of power, or an imagined or falsely interpreted citizenry).
+
+### Know Your Role
+
+Think about it. If your conduct is contributing to the message that the state is incorrectly identifying its citizens, the relations between them, and the purpose of the institutions and initiatives of the country, then you are identifying as someone who is both a threat to the state's authority and to social harmony.
+
+Everyone's role in the matter, including those who are supposedly caught in the net cast by the specification, is to confirm and elaborate the truth as indicated by the state, and to do this correctly means not participating in or contributing to a genocide of the reified identity being referenced. If you are a Status Indian living in Canada who doesn't believe that other Status Indians are Two-Spirit, or that the term doesn't really describe something legitimate, then you are succumbing to the influence of whiteness and colonialism and now possess a false consciousness. You can no longer speak on behalf of any peoples you are otherwise ascribed as being a member of.
+
+It is because of this that it becomes more important to demonstrate the logic and corresponding thinking of the state specification than it does to be of a particular physical form, to have had particular experiences and history, to be of a certain family, to be of specific genetic make-up, and so forth. If your communication does not facilitate the demonstration and reification of the state's specification, then your history, your skin colour, your family, your genetic make-up and your physiological experiences all become inadmissible except as evidence of the mythos put forward by the state, and only insofar as it will be interpreted by those the state deems its experts.
+
+To be clear, it's not any of the specific, concrete attribute of the body, nor even the genetic sequence which can be decoded from a sample of your DNA. It is predicted interpretation by experts of the perception and consequent expectations of the phenotypic expressions deduced from the presentation of your material body when observed by members of specific strata in a corresponding social environment.
+
+All your beliefs about our family and the legacy of human activity are now irrelevant and tantamount to lies and dishonesty unless you correctly demonstrate the state's recommended sensibilities for someone with your body. The state owns the infrastructure to assign reality to each and every being and, as such, the meaning of every scrutinized moment of your life. If seeking to truly represent your own person on your terms, you are an irrelevant piece of embarrassing and disgraceful clump of matter and you can never be intelligibly construed in this society; you can only be an example of how to have your real, experienced existence erased, disregarded and discredited. You will never be a real person.
+
+### Evading Mephistopheles
+
+And so it is in Faust that the main character makes a deal with the devil on the basis of his desire for power, pleasure and intellectual formidability. He laments having studied and mastered all the great works and sources of knowledge and that he still stands "no wiser than before", and yearns for the satisfaction which has always evaded him:
+
+> "Then to the moment I might say: / Linger a while, thou art so fair!” - Faust
+
+It would be the realization and admission of a moment that he would like to remain in for longer than its expanse of temporality, such as it is, which proves that, should his promise have been made, the devil's part of the deal will have been fulfilled.
+
+Obviously it's presented such that the red flag of a sensory rewards-based satisfaction is doomed to prove insufficient. Even if it is derived through intellectually-driven pursuit, it's still assured to be a moment that satisfies as mere feeling, which in spite of any level of sophistication is still the means of driving an animal. This is, in a sense, analogous to the collectivist desire, which believes there will be some satisfaction in the Immanentization of the right conditions and finally curbing the angst of existence, having triumph on conquering one's enemies, attaining a radical joy after the hope of victory, and being finally brought to the endpoint that tension had driven one to.
+
+In the second act, however, after many would-be moments of bliss that just somehow missed the mark of truly becoming the moment of satisfaction, he finds himself nearing the end of his life and now, finally, he's confronted with moments which might help him reach a higher level of being. He imagines enhancing the world for the benefit of the many, and it leads him to an astonishing moment of revelation:
+
+> "Such a throng I’d like to see, / Standing on free soil with a people free! ... In the foretaste of such bliss, / I now enjoy the highest moment, this.” - Faust
+
+On the hand, this is presented as something beyond his mere intellectual inclination and his pursuit of experiencing the greatest moment through his sensory apparatus, and I'd love to say that his former goal of achieving something with correlates with the inclination of the collectivist has been supplanted with a realization that there's something more than mere pleasure: the eternalizing satisfaction that there can be a better world for all and that one might have conceived of it, or even had a hand in it, and that, should it be realized, one needn't even be thanked for it, thus making it a selfless act. Goethe even makes it appear as such as, in spite of Faust's expression which was previously tied to being the unlocking of the bargain by which the devil would now own his soul, he is still accepted into heaven for having been one who "strives with all his might" for something greater than himself, which qualifies his redemption.
+
+But is it not the same thing? Is it not still a moment of bliss which, though ostensibly presented as a focus on the good of all, rather than his own gratification, is still never going to be beyond his embodied experience. Whatever blissful sense of transcendence one aspires to, the notion that it's in service of a collective good which is separate from oneself is, at best unproven and in all likelihood tangled with one's state of embodiment and proclivities borne of the senses.
+
+It's precisely this failure of distinction which will always enable one to rationalize what can lead to the absurd, the atrocious, and even evil deeds through one's moral aspirations. This is quite in line with the banality of evil which, though some argue as being an illusion in the face of actual psychopathic minds who expertly seek out the acting out of evil deeds, needn't present as a case of mutual exclusion. It's precisely our capacity to imagine we are good which provides opportunity for more tragedy and, yes, even evil.
+
+For many, it might seem obvious that seeking bliss and fulfillment through intellect, lust, passion and triumph are things that, if perfectly quantified, would be evaluated and expressed in material terms. By perfectly quantified, I mean that we could theorize a system by which the pleasure of the nervous system could be expressed in a standard format, even just in theory, on the basis that we agree that there can be pleasure in experience. We could even theorize as to how we would take into consideration the dynamics of human cognition and performance on the basis that capabilities mature over time, are yielded and granted through disparate paths to mastery, and the manner in which long-lived impressions can change through experience, thus adding many layers of complexity to how perception is affected and personalized in complex ways, and that this contributes to a maturity of perspective that we sometimes refer to as wisdom, and that with better models, theories and quantification, we could theoretically develop an ever-improving capacity to evaluate the "bliss" of the moment as is experienced by a human being.
+
+In contrast to this, it always seems common to assume that, even if one were not a theist, the idea of experiencing spiritual transcendence is difficult to quantify. That for some it might be connected to the divine, or an idea about divinity, and that for others it might simply be perceiving the world with a heightened sensibility where one aspires to express obtain and reduce their selfishness in order to find more meaningful fulfillment and that, in even simply aspiring to meet the frame of perception differently, it becomes more complicated to ascertain whether one is driven through an incentive of satisfaction via the sense apparatus.
+
+But I would argue that, in truth, it is complete and utter hubristic nonsense to entertain the possibility of these things being separate, at least insofar as oneself might experience, and that the very inclination to assume we can consider the possibility of this difference in informing what sort of undertakings should be sought for a collective are liable to be at the root of any vile catastrophe.
+
+That we could seek some elegance possibly in the spirit of some counterpuntal quality of existence may, very well, be a better way of regarding reality at all, but that it may inform our moral prescriptions for another is inherently problematic in just the same way as prescribing another to the benefit of the many can be. 
+
+That isn't to say that we I wouldn't hope to discern satisfaction from activities per an expectation of lasting satisfaction which is well-supported and not fleeting, and perhaps something that can be attained in a manner which restores, reinvigorates, and reinforces the most remarkable and elegance-supporting patterns of phenomena. But, we can't ever discern something beyond an individualist pursuit of a resistance of the ego and the will which insists on demonstrating a supremacy or in receiving an experience that one might otherwise be missing. Is a complexity which comes through a relaxed awareness lending towards unique, exploratory expression that is harmoniously and robustly reinforced with a seemingly infinite depth of the natural frictionless essence of reality? A noiseless expression of a quality which trumps the barbaric ejaculation of egotistical desire? I hope so.
+
+I contend that the collectivist pursuit of supremacy over the order of being is precisely the Mephistophelean path, but that the belief that one is choosing a mode beyond it is liable to fool one into following that same path yet even further than before. It is the individualist whose attempt to find a more chaotic and ephemeral harmony with his free peers, and embodying the wisdom gathered through our history and experience, and that this can only hoped to be approached as a possibility. Perhaps through such a modality can humanity harness some infinite potential of our world and ourselves, but this can't be measured beyond adherence to our principles most readily observed before the advent of political society; the infinite regress forces us to ask questions of life in pure solitude and the lowest levels of social interaction.
+
+Regardless of which path we may be on, we must always suppose that it's taking us towards this abomination: a monstrous, blind and archaic corporate entity calling itself the people, for the people and for the good. A freakish beast that purports to know minds, and which threatens to replace real people and a legacy of beautiful culture with a decrepit and pathetic voodoo doll and childish taunts of a supreme infallibility.
+
+## Two-Spirit Negation Part II
+
+How distastefully ironic that after the elaborate commentary on the 20th century's dehumanizing practices of categorizing humans to enact social, cultural and absolute control over people's supposed identities, and indeed their lives, the state, corporation, syndicates and oligarchs are finding an ostensibly true humanitarian calling in imbuing the entirety of what they do with reifying a specification of what people are, as denoted by their material classification (that is, the classification of the matter of their flesh as the source of applying a meaning to the essence of their being). As we've commented on before, the irony is purposeful in that the system of critique which declares the need to categorize does so on the supposed need to counter the categories otherwise being wrongfully applied, and that it finds its way of doing this through the central authorities at every opportunity, which both empowers the psychopathological activist to wreak their manipulative tactics for their personal proclivity to reify their morally elevated self image.
+
+People with North American Indian heritage are but one of the many casualties, which actually encompass all of humanity, but are as a target quite exemplary of the pathological political climate in Canada. For years, Canadians have bemoaned that the higher poverty of Native Indian persons living on reserves is directly related to low expectations translating to lack of agency and had sought initiatives to champion economic opportunity and skills development specifically because of the understanding that they are equally capable of using logic, reason and a motivated capacity for work to achieve a better life. The contrast of living in poor conditions, with few opportunity, among those who share an ethnic and cultural heritage and in a manner which exhibits the aesthetics of segregation against an integrated society where people are free to engage in their cultural practices as they please has been something that was always critiqued as a consequence of misplaced effort and poor central planning. Even while working for Northern and Indian Affairs Canada, in the early 2000s, it was a common opinion among policy analysts that this circumstance was harmful to Indians particularly because of the bigotry of low expectations combined with a circumstance whereby those in that environment never find themselves building interests and discovering what they are capable of.
+
+In consideration of the state, to indicate that there is a need for rectifying historical oppression because of its relevance to identity, identity that it knows and enumerates as concrete, is synonymous with claiming the power necessary to curate and transform the conditions which were in any way a ground for that historical oppression. According to Marx, and many after him, the conditions include all human relations, all use, availability and ownership of resources, and even nature itself, which is ultimately not something which is to be distinguished from nature itself. Until that historical oppression is no longer extant, this project continues as the construction of the noble savage, at yet a newer iteration, and which has been constructed such as to include implements of all the subset collectivist ideologies still floating around today and this is a project most mediated by those who, as already positioned in the upper echelons of the sociopolitical environment, are most enabled through enhanced implements to sociopolitical power.
+
+Of course, this isn't just relegating one set of phenotypically observable expressions bound to a class of human to a form of beast, in the sense that their content and motivations are something modeled and prescriptive, but the assigning of a beast category to all humans as a whole through the historical mythos, as it confers content and motivations for them as well.
+
+Assuming that these simple beasts exist with no real thought of their own, but simply an awkward mess of desires and reactions, and that one classification of beast had a temporally-afforded state of relatively more endowed access to resource which allowed them to attain dominance over another, regardless of any other contextual consideration, is the cause of the eternal designations of God and Devil, sacred and fallen, divine and mundane. Through state-acknowledged identity, one material formation of flesh vs another becomes the principle driver of our morality, the questioning of which is avoided as though deemed forbidden and evidence of which formation one's mind is the product of. And indeed it is forbidden as the law dictates that the capacity for an identity category to exist and thus any instance of beast to which it has been ascribed rests upon the capacity of the collective to assure that an identity can be made to sufficiently feel a sense of belonging to an environment, with the chief evaluation in that environment being the content of utterances which occur within it.
+
+Interestingly enough, however, the fact that questioning any aspect of the mythology of conflict between two classifications of material forms should be forbidden indicates that the classifications themselves should be something for which good sense would incline towards forbidding, as it makes any concept of one's identity into something dead, unchanging and unresponsive. Imagine that living person would want for their state of mind and view to be predicated without real observation and understanding of the things they say or do. Of course, even such an inhuman practice needs to be permitted, if only just to identify those who harbour actual bigoted points of view (that is, the practice of labeling people as per identity categories and theorizing about their morals, opinions, rationales, and so forth based on the meaning of that identity).
+
+That simply isn't the extent of it, but it certainly is the basis as to why it should be rejected and ridiculed. Any ideological pursuit of imposing contradiction for historical rectification is necessarily a process for the discovery and construction of totalitarian, puritanical and eschatological characteristics (creating conflict to rectify historical conflict implies a need to control the state of reality until conflict does not occur, or dominance and supremacy is permanently achieved). That all humans must take up the work of transforming the world into a specification of acceptance criteria which, by any reasonable consideration (barring the most extreme technological solutions), is not only technically unattainable, and is not only presupposing a representation of every human, as per a model's evaluation of their body, but which is formulated with logic both congruent to and inspired by Marx's critiques and critical philosophy as per his writing and theory of historical materialism.
+
+Many would balk at such a suggestion, claiming that the classical and perhaps even naively vulgar socio-economic classification, predicated on material management as resources bearing an effect of value, is a far cry from the nuanced understanding of cultures, races, psychologically-mediated gender expression, and so forth. But what is a perfection in the configuration of matter without a perfection which includes that of the flesh?
+
+When it comes to producing rhetoric which supposes an oppressed status by people befitting a description of their bodies, such persons are put on the stage of this authoritative entity, described in a manner which presupposes that this entity has a deeper understanding of a particular type of human by virtue of the fact that it speaks of its weaknesses and vulnerability, but this is in addition to a few more things to the oppressed type as well:
+- One's fallen state is reified uncritically: The suggestion of man's shortcomings is always a welcome one, as the state must always validate its reason to enforce new controls which will remedy the situation. When reinforced by theory which can presuppose the malice and hate of man with identity itself satisfying any need for evidence, the tendency becomes irresistable.
+- One's challenge in life is now defined and described by the state along with its purpose, intention, meaning and the nature and content of the experience: The state understands both the nature of every human being's challenge and the role each citizen must play in overcoming challenge.
+- It becomes the standard quantifier for determining the quality of God or Devil: With its premises already fulfilled, it just becomes a matter of collecting the right information.
+- In order to be spoken of as enumerated by the authority as being considered as legitimately having a particular identity (performing it correctly), one must either perform their actions in line with the authority's description (based entirely on what you say and what you do), or not offer up or express any contradiction, resistance, or hesitation to the description or the capacity of the state to announce any identity. Resistance to its descriptions of identity is tantamount to erasing all members of the identity, destroying their "human rights", and participating in genocide, as "genocide" is now no longer the direct practice of systemic eradication, but is instead something which includes a failure to center a particular category's culture, as was seen with Canada's declaration of the historical occurrence of Genocide of Canada'as Native Indian populations  (prepare yourself -> death wish, assured death, misery & company, apocalyptic induction and so on).
+
+As we carry on in our analysis, we will examine the ways in which the state has employed aesthetic determinants to appropriate the culture and representation of millions of people based on the material characteristics of their bodies or their proclaimed experiences (as evaluated by the state)
+
+### Rainbow Savage
+
+Motifs of rainbow:
+- Brilliant, eternal light
+- Transcendent completion
+- The total range of being
+- Infinite
+- Timeless wisdom
+
+There is something majestic about the rainbow and the prism of refraction inducing the display of superseding wisdom in its perfected, harmonious and balanced form, as though something beyond the crude offerings of fallen man. To take this up as an extension of oneself as though the essence of one's being is to be acknowledged as something revered with the perfection of the potential of expression - that things taken as humans understand them as things that are discrete will always yield incomplete, partial expressions of being, but that consolidating all things within one expression by purposely pursuing and empowering the expression of anything based on the suggestion that it should be limited in some way is the path of salvation and that resistance to this in any form is a failure in some universal sense, regardless of any particulars - that as soon as something is indicated through identity, that it must be incorporated.
+
+Modern Queer liberation is not the only philosophy or religion whereby the Rainbow is invoked as a sign of transcendence or supreme mastery. From ancient Sumerian myth with hints of divine approval and possibly immortality, protection and power in Hinduism, a connection to the land of the gods in Norse mythology, aura in Theosophy, mastery of the body in Buddhism, and so on, we can see that it quite intuitively brings the human mind into considering the divine and the infinite, almost as a proxy for reaching something beyond the mortal and material human life and uncovering the true view of reality.
+
+Unlike other supposed "races", which are enumerated through descriptions found in Critical Race Theory as people whose knowledges come through the structural oppression vis-a-vis "Whiteness" and colonialism, and whereby there isn't usually much rhetoric which acknowledges their identity as being related to the divine, Indigenous, Native, First Nations, Inuit, Metis and other means of referring to people with relations to anteceding persons whose presence preceded that of Europeans are often portrayed as having some divine connection to land, with rhetoric even going so far as to the point of self-proclaimed atheists using terms like "Creator" or "Spirit" when explaining the history of said peoples.
+
+### The State as Man's Failure
+
+Let's refresh ourselves on the role of the state, so we can better interpret what the incentives might be both for those employed within the structure of governance, as well as those who implore the state, to have the system of governance implemented such as to refer to its citizens by disparate identities rather than referring to them in a way which identifies them on the basis of their commonality.
+
+- State exists to work out / resolve conflict between men
+- Men without conflict don't need a state
+- The existence of a state proves that class conflict exists
+
+If the state exists as man's failure, then it necessarily needs a story about the people for whom it is undertaking the great task of correcting. In the case of a political process, since we're dealing with species of men who, according to the mythos, cannot use logic and reason to resolve their affairs and create a better world, the state must alleviate man from having to be faced with situations whereby they are liable to use, or believe they are using, logic and reason to settle their affairs. Put differently, the state must ensure that the conduct of its people is for the people, which means preventing them from performing actions which are contrary to the interests of the people.
+
+This also means that, when subjected to the conditions of a political system where the citizens assume they are afforded a democratic process, the state of the people must remain vigilant to ensure that the process is functioning correctly and not subverted in such a way that parties which exist to undermine and oppress people are able to gain power.
+
+See, the purely democratic system of governance for the people is a state government which has successfully eliminated all political entities vying for parliamentary power that are not "for the people" and this is the first step.
+
+> "Dialectics of democracy: if democracy means self-government of free people, with justice for all, then the realization of democracy would presuppose abolition of the existing pseudo-democracy. In the dynamic of corporate capitalism, the fight for democracy thus tends to assume anti-democratic forms, and to the extent to which the democratic decisions are made in “parliaments” on all levels, the opposition will tend to become extra-parliamentary." - Herbert Marcuse (An Essay on Liberation)
+
+What does it mean to be "for the people?". Well, that is evaluated in the sociopolitical discourse and if some perfectly-composed, semantically-complete structure representing a party "for the people" can be ascertained, presented and disseminated, then the parties can be compared against it in order to know how perfectly "for the people" they are. We could call that the second step. Of course, it is mostly organized activists or the incumbent party that are actively evaluating and producing rhetoric as to whether other parties in the environment are meeting a standard of being sufficiently "for the people". The incentives will always be structured such that the incumbent party wishes to demonstrate that it is the only party which is truly for the people, while the activists who compel the state to enforce stricter constraints in order to ensure that parties must be "for the people" will desire having a say in a people's party, either by influencing a party or through its creation. 
+
+In the meantime, so long identity breeds intolerance of ideas, democracy becomes a mere fable and is supplanted by the process of convincing people to set into motion the elimination of political choice until only one incumbent party remains which has unequivocally declared itself to be "for the people".
+
+If that could ever be achieved, what happens next for the classical Marxist (along an interpretation of Engels) would be that the state withers away. For the Leninist, they would say that the state will continue to exist only as long as struggle and tension between the parties continues to exist, as the contradictions can still linger among the people. That the party exists is itself the indication that it should continue to and, knowing the sentiments and attitudes of legislators, administrators and politicians, there will always be struggle and tension to be found so long as people remain classifiable through sociopolitical theory.
+
+This is why it doesn't matter how blatant, egregious, or severe the party's mistakes are. If even ever the errors of a party are undeniable, if no immediate scapegoat exists, any error is always preceded by at least one other error at the lower level of analysis bearing any sort of association: that of a human. This is, ironically, the only time a human is considered to have individual agency, whereas almost all other decisions are made under the assumption that we need to counteract the "fact" that humans (except maybe children for whom comprehensive sex education might be offered) have no agency.
+
+That is, there is always reason to assume that everything about you from your morals, values, ways of relating to others, and so on, must be taught to you, not in terms of ways of thinking about these things outright, but in terms of what the correct opinion should be on every matter of any import, and especially so in the age of ever more miniscule gradations of experts. What's most insidious is how it is explicit here that these things are programmed into people while also utilizing and convincing them that their selecting a particular viewpoint and, by virtue of the content academically attributed to that viewpoint, they've somehow provided a demonstration of a critical thinking faculty. That is to say, whether it is inline with their capacity to bring about proletarian revolution.
+
+### Great Spirit, Great Creator
+
+When the state invokes the reference to and story about what it refers to as the original people of this land, it's implied that the relevance of the reference is because of the assumption of their having been wronged and stolen from. Of course, it doesn't mean by it (the state). No, the state is the only entity which is finally making the wronged, broken people whole again, whereas all other humans in the world who aren't enumerated as these unfortunates can only participate in demonstrating a desire for restoration (reconciliation) through supporting the state, proving the state correct, and participating in the work of whatever program it is undertaking. In fact, in Canada the process of reconciliation is referred to as "Truth and Reconciliation" and, in the words of many Indigenous activists, "reconciliation" begins with "truth". This is, of course, not a process of inquiry, discovery and deliberation, but an acceptance that truth is the product of identity, and that one's ability to benefit from truth depends on the positionality of one's identity. That is to say, if one is not bearing an identity of the oppressed which, in this case, is someone whose body will have them be structurally associated as Indigenous, then even though one cannot truly know truth, they can benefit by truth, and not act as a gatekeeper for the benefits of truth to be enjoyed, by accepting the truth as is told to them by those whom they are oppressing.
+
+As has been discussed earlier, the ever-present factor of structurally-determined oppression has been interpreted by Queer theorists such as to assert that persons of North American Indian descent have a Queer identity. I am reminded of this quote:
+
+> "Native peoples have already been determined by settler colonialism to have no future” (p. 48): 
+    If the goal of queerness is to challenge the reproduction of the social order, then the Native child may already by queered. For instance, Colonel John Chivington, the leader of the famous massacre at Sand Creek, charged his followers to not only kill Native adults by to manipulate their reproductive organs and to kill their children because “nits make lice.” (p. 48)
+In this circumstance, the Native child is not invested with assurance of futurity and cannot cohere in Edelman’s privileged portrayal of the cult of the Child. The Native child, for Smith, is queered because it “is not a guarantor of the reproductive future of white supremacy; it is the nit that undoes it” - Hannah Dyer (Queer futurity and childhood innocence: Beyond the injury of development)
+
+As a reminder, "futurity" refers to the reproduction of society, particularly through oppressive hegemonic structures. Hannah is quoting Andrea Smith's paper entitled "Queer theory and native studies", which investigates inadequate deconstructions of "futurity" and uses Smith's criticism of Edelman to show us how the evolution of Queer theory has been such to consider both the expectation of. Essentially, Edelan is known for having problematized childhood innocence as an abstraction because innocence of childhood is made sacred as a symbol of heteropatriarchal order which ultimate positions childhood development such as to lead to heterosexual reproduction, hence a need to "Queer" childhood innocence.
+
+Smith's criticisms are great examples of the semantics by which Queer theory is the logic of cult collectivism and, hence, totalitarian.
+
+She posits that Edelman fails to understand, or at least acknowledge, that not all children are innocent. Though she finds that he does a good job of bringing into view the notion of a Queer childhood, it makes too many assumptions which keep marginalized identities from being made visible and, thus, becomes not only a missed opportunity, but re-enacts the form of oppression that it purports to be addressing. She refers to the "vulgar constructionism" which, for those keeping score, is a nod to antiquated ways of thinking that are associated with classical Marxism which simplify a more richly nuanced reality of social relations by painting it the fuzzy and blurry brush strokes that come from a classical critique of capitalism. For example, though he wishes to problematize the expectation of children being innocent, and hopes to do this through the "Queering" of childhood, Drawing on an example of the "Native child", Smith posits that Edelman doesn't realize that some children are already not innocent and, as such, already"queered".
+
+Another point of her criticism stems an understanding that Edelman's analysis fails to provide a more materialist and intersectional implementation of analysis in that it is grounding praxis in the abstract, by utilizing language about children which describes the child's body as a concept, rather than speaking the actual, concrete bodies of children more directly. That is to say, she wishes to ground the site of contention and conflict in the bodies themselves, which is something that has become more rampant in queering of Early Childhood Education:
+
+> "the child’s body, as we imagine it, is a battleground for our projections and fears" - Kathryn Bond Stockton (The Queer Child)
+
+The last point to draw attention to from that quote is that Smith doesn't believe in addressing the need for social transformation on the basis of rhetoric and criticism alone. While Edelman believes that Queer activism negates and disturbs on its own, thus rejecting concrete political projects altogether with the belief that the praxis at the level of theory and living will evoke the changes sought, Smith envisions coalitions, provisional political organization, and collective material movement for confrontational action towards Queer liberation. In a sense, though this is the logical evolution of collectivism, it's also still going back to some of the fundamental staples of Marxist praxis, which did always indicate a need for a dictatorship of the proletariat.
+
+This follows the same line of reasoning that collectivist thinking necessarily seeks totalitarian solutions in that the very idea that there is a moral impetus for viably human participants to be differentiated on the basis of agreeing with those whose ideas are represented in the collective implies a totalizing endpoint. As a result, even though many thinkers within an area of collectivist thought may truly believe that they wish to preserve fundamental principles of freedom and liberty, it's only a matter of time before their ideas are supplanted by those who advocate for views which evolve with the domain of thought. That is to say, the domain of thought itself will gravitate towards totalitarian solutions over time.
+
+### What It Is
+
+#### What It's Not
+
+There is relentless effort to put forward the notion that identity is something tangible and meaningful through the argument that people have unique identities because they are a mishmash of component identities which, in their particular permutation, constitute something unique. This is an absurd idea, because the very idea that any of these components are themselves enumerable means that the expectations bound to them are something meaningful and true, and that they are designated to persons because they have the knowledge or behaviour which is associated with them. Even to suggest that people are unique because the identities being allocated in their specific configuration constitute a unique set is ridiculous, because that we can classify which types of identities are being spoken of and recognized in society means that there are certain ones which are worth of reference, while any others which might number in an infinite set of possible identity types carry no political weight behind them, and are disregarded.
+
+Are we to think that there exist disregarded identity categories that are somehow more important than the ones the state has chosen to recognize? What would it mean if the state were putting forward statements and legislation of moral and legal weight on the basis of identity categories that elide more significant categories that are not being used? Wouldn't that mean that the state doesn't know its own citizens, and that its efforts to resolve their social conflict are actually being done a somewhat blind and possibly counterproductive fashion? If the state were to suggest or admit that there exist possibly more important categories that it hasn't yet made use of in its communication to the public, then it would be admitting a gross and fundamental error about its approach and record of governance.
+
+So, no, it would be ridiculous to assume that the state would even concede that there exist more important identity categories, therefore the ones it is using are those which it deems as being the most meaningful in terms of understanding the nature, knowledge and behaviour of its citizens. Based on this alone, it would be necessary to assume that, all thigns considered equal, persons bearing the same identity category, even as a composite of intersectional ones, are of the same nature, character and morality, that they exhibit the same behaviour, and that they enjoy the same knowledge. This is a completely repugnant idea and anyone with a shred of honesty, even if they agree with the use of such descriptions for some historical purpose, would understand that these proxy identities are not actually the substance of a person, but an implement by which to mediate social affairs in the context of a state which can apply force to its citizens.
+
+On the front of narrative and rhetoric, there are always challenges in getting humans to understand that there is an insidious and harmful practice of collectivist cult initiation occurring, and that initiatives which perform activist such as to draw persons into the cult are targeting people on the superficial basis of taking some aspect of their body's presentation, and then using some of the aforementioned theories to describe the meaning of the person in an environment which requires transformation into collectivist society because society currently has artificial expectations about that body.
+
+#### Approaching the Naive
+
+Over the past few years, I've been delighted to see a change in the attitude and initiative of people who might refer to themselves by quite a wide variety of social identifiers, from liberals and conservatives to academics and blue collar workers, and everything in between. It had just taken some time before the toll of collectivist cult ideology had made its way into their personal and professional lives, and left them with pain, estrangement, disillusion, unemployment, lost loved ones and, in some cases, a desire for suicide (that some may have acted on). Many have strong opinions on the correct manner with which to present specifically what it is that we're deaing with, how best to comprehend it, and how best to address it. Though it's better that people are willing to stand up to propositions that they intuit or ascertain as being wrong, there can be many pitfalls resulting from the approach they take in addressing it.
+
+Many choose to simply call it Communist, based on quite a wide variety of interpretations as to what constitutes Communism or a Communist. Obviously, based on the writing in this book, I've taken a moment to illuminate my understanding both of what it is, and what the most common understandings of it happen to be.
+
+!TODO: Re-summarize Communism:
+- Communist as definition: the { concept, idea, model and theory }
+  - Theory described as a model of what could be
+    - The theoretical concept of what a human being may be -> described fundamentally as an ontology and:
+    - The species Being -> Marxist definition/description
+    - People advocating for a political system / political party
+- Communist as self-described: { identification, declaration, and social culture }
+  - What one might claim themselves to be
+- Communist as deciphered by the onlooker: { observation, allegation, categorization }
+  - What one asserts others to be
+
+Now that we've re-visited some of those summaries, let's touch on some of the challenges most would have in calling out collectivist cult artifacts, practices and instigations as being "Communism":
+
+##### Calling it Communism
+
+When you refer to something as being Communist in order to criticize it, you will mostly be confronted by those who don't really understand what Communism is in the first place, beyond either a pop-culture understanding derived from consumption of entertainment, having observed surface level spats on politics prompted by people's television consumption, or perhaps what one might have learned based on some introductory politics material given as one portion of curriculum in a middle school course (in our case, it was it was a "Canadian Studies" course in grade 7 where we learned some basics presented as one linear dimension of political orientations spanning two extreme points of "Fascism" on the right and "Communism" on the left, and this has turned out to be almost everyone's cursory view of politics).
+
+It doesn't mean you shouldn't call out things as they relate to Communism, whether by philosophical underpinning, or as a progression of what is being demanded, or whether a description of the world being enunciated before you matches the description of man's ontology, according to Marx. Regardless of how you do it, you should do it in a way which indicates that Communism was a conceptual endpoint which satisfied the requirements of Marx's liberation. That is to say, the thing you are identifying as relating to Communism probably shares the concept of Communism as its logical endpoint, and bases this logic on a declaration of a human being's reality in line with what Marx and his followers have described. If you're trying to make the claim that it's a secret Communist agenda or a Communist conspiracy by a Communist empire, then you're probably also a bit nutty and this book may be about you too.
+
+##### Calling it a Cult
+
+It has become increasingly common to accuse someone of belonging to a cult, engaging in cult-like behaviour and referring to an organization, ideology, political party or political orientation as simply being a cult.
+
+This, of course, happens all across the political divide, with accusations of one being of the Gender cult, to the MAGA cult, to being taken in by the cult of personality of Monsieur l'Orange, to mindless statements like "all libtards are part of a cult".
+
+Almost anything can be made to sound like a cult in today's day an age. If someone feels uneasy that too many people appear to be paying attention to something, or if they hear something uttered that's politically relevant that they don't understand or find sounds incomprehensible, then it seems to point to there being an inner-enclave who would be the only ones able to decipher the messaging. If there is a reiterated and perpetual aesthetic, a recognizable artifact, logo or colour scheme, or something memetic which appears to pervade certain subsets of society, then it is surely going to be labelled as a cult.
+
+Nationalism becomes a cult; that people wish for something which is presupposed as being available or accessible within a closed system with restricted access and preferential treatment, then that is easily referred to as a cult. 
+
+This complicates things, because sometimes it's necessary to point out that something exhibits the properties of an actual cult, but this will now easily be met with denial and resistance. It's far too easy to take the term "cult" and use it to describe an absurd illustration of just about anything.
+
+But why would one legitimately wish to refer to something as a cult? I'm guilty of using the term repeatedly throughout this book and, though it might sound excessive to some, I'm very convinced that the behaviour we've seeing, the use of initiate language, and the result effect of persons being drawn into the ideas becoming incapable of of having rational discussions with those who even modestly disagree with them are all expected consequences of the implementation of a cult structure having proliferated in our society.
+
+That really is the difference between a cult and a philosophy or ideology. That is to say, the effect of making adherents unable to rationally use logic and reason to discuss their ideas with those who aren't part of whom they perceive as being the "in-group".
+
+This in-group/out-group distinction, though often declared by an initiate or an adept as being a difference of those who are supportive and understanding (in-group) vs those who are ideologically possessed and harmful (out-group), are a difference in use of language. That is to say, though one could investigate a subject's claim that another is harmful to them, it's besides the point and is, in effect, a subjective claim. Those persons whom they don't consider "in-group" aren't necessarily posing a specific and impending threat to them. That is, those whom they are now unable to rationally engage with could be friends or family members, and the initiate doesn't necessarily have a specific reason to suspect them of wishing to or being capable of harming them. The difference is that, at the level of language, they have now been made incapable of discussing the subjects relating to the point of contention because of the linguistic manipulations they have adopted through the in-group. That is, their incompatibility is the product of having adopted initiate language specific to the cult which causes the adherents to compose beliefs contingent on the new specific use of language, and this use of language is reinforced by those who are part of the in-group, leading to the initiate's world-view being made incompatible with those out-group persons, even if it includes those persons with whom they would otherwise share a close and familiar connection with, such as family members.
+
+Let's take as an example, first in the abstract, that to use initiate language which makes oneself believe that they are part of a liberation movement and having an identity which pertains to that movement, they begin to use language to describe the premises redefined to have particular meaning within the movement, and these carry implications that are contrary to reasonable understanding they would otherwise easily come to have with familiar persons that are now out-group. Now, more specifically, if this were occurring as a Queer formulation, they might say "this is my true self", that they have a "gender identity", must be referred to with language which normally refers to the opposite sex, and that to maintain the understanding of their "true self", the persons with whom they associate will now have to make use of different terminology in order to address or refer to them.
+
+Though this can occur through the introduction of new terms, and this often is the case, it will also be the supplanting of existing terms or the meanings of terms using dialectical negation. There is now an in-group language which is supported by its own rationalizations predicated on in-group understandings of language and these rationales have become incompatible with general use of language and processes of reasoning through critical thinking using logic in neutral terms.
+
+If people are defensive of some idea or realm of thought, or even just primed to dismiss criticism of something popularly accepted as being the stuff of conspiracy theory, they will respond poorly upon hearing that the thing in question is a form of cult:
+
+Mostly, they will think of a cult as being something which has been romanticized and exaggerated through a Hollywood production. Everything from high profile international conspiracy involving royalty, to monsters and space aliens. Perhaps something of a skull and bones variety with roots in every institution of the world where members carry daggers, perform blood rituals and must take part in extravagant initiation ceremonies as new recruits who endure gauntlets of tests involving murder and debauchery.
+
+As with anything, you need to stick to definitions and be clear that perversion of language isn't necessarily a secret cult, but that formal aspects of it are simply the parasitization of ideas, to borrow from the great Gad Saad, which has established itself in academic disciplines through collectivist praxis, and become well-represented in entertainment and pop culture first and foremost because of the effect of that parasitization. There is no conspiracy required for its instantiation and proliferation, and whether people conspire to achieve objectives for their own benefit is an independent matter which doesn't need to bear any relevance on the subject as we're examining it.
+
+##### Calling it Mental Illness
+
+I've seen many people refer to the ongoing issue as being one related to, or even caused by, mental illness. Whether it's due to the rise in mental illness diagnoses, the focus on mental illness in media and academic institutions, the swelling of mental health and wellness industries, the identification of new mental illnesses for identification as part of professional diagnostic repertoires, mental healthism in education, or the fact that Critical Theory-based analyses, grievance and victimhood as a cultural practice have led to mental health conditions becoming a sort of identity by which people choose to associate themselves, often as a virtue, it's something for which there are many reasons and opportunities to come into thinking about, especially as it presents in politically tumultuous affairs.
+
+Though it's probably not accurate or even helpful to frame the societal challenges of our time as being the product of mental illness, it's perhaps still worth understanding the relationship of mental illness to our shared predicament as it's certainly the case that it has become not just a more visible element in society, but that it's commonly, if not specifically diagnosed, at least referred to among those who associate themselves as being part of a collectivist movement, or who somehow identify themselves using a term which is common in one of these movements.
+
+###### Mental Illness as Critical Consciousness
+
+The fact is that, for those who advocate collectivist solutions, they are seeking evidence that those in their vicinity will agree to their prescriptions. This means agreeing that the conditions themselves are not satisfactory and can only be overcome through such a degree of collective effort that full participation stands as the only proxy indicator by which the conditions are adequately addressed (the alternative being that one wouldn't have an inclination to criticize the environment and, as such, wouldn't have conceived of the possibility of the collectivist undertaking).
+
+For Freire, this would mean "Denounce to proclaim the world". For Marx, it's "Ruthless criticism of all that exists" ("rücksichtslose Kritik alles Bestehenden"). For Horkheimer, he described the whole purpose of the critical method as follows:
+> "Critical Theory ... is suspicious of the very categories of better, useful, appropriate, productive, and valuable, as these are understood in the present order, and refuses to take them as nonscientific presuppositions about which one can do nothing." - Max Horkheimer (Traditional and Critical Theory
+
+It stands to reason that in order to recruit for a worldview which requires the destruction and replacement of the "present order", whether through "ruthless criticism", "denouncing" or the attitude of being suspicious to all that is "valuable", that one would necessarily take on a position which despairs about things such as they are and that, as a collective endeavour, one would seek out, identify, or induce in others a similar sentiment of finding the current world intolerable. A belief that existence is intolerable would cause one difficulty in their everyday functioning. This is quite amenable to definitions of mental illness, which include describing mental illness as being a condition or behavioural pattern which "causes significant distress", "impairment of personal functioning", the "reduced ability for a person to function effectively", and so on. This is, for example, something commonly described of college or university level students of climate science when teachers detail the need to provide their students with additional exam time, or the ability to retake their exams, due to the students being so personally affected by their understanding of the threats they are faced with by virtue of the insight in to the matter that was afforded to them through their study of the course.
+
+Herbert Marcuse bemoaned the failure of the working class to realize the limitations of their circumstance of living in an unliberated environment, due to their having settled for trivial and mind-numbing pacifications which make them "one dimensional". His hope was that the negative experience of college students and ethnic minorities would be so severe such as to constitute a "biological" need for revolution:
+
+> "This new consciousness and the instinctual rebellion isolate such opposition from the masses and from the majority of organized labor, the integrated majority, and make for the concentration of radical politics in active minorities, mainly among the young middle-class intelligentsia, and among the ghetto populations. Here, prior to all political strategy and organization, liberation becomes a vital, “biological” need." - Herbert Marcuse (An Essay on Liberation)
+
+For him, this is the basis by which to form what he referred to as a "New Sensibility":
+
+> "These causes are economic-political, but since they have shaped the very instincts and needs of men, no economic and political changes will bring  this historical continuum to a stop unless they are carried through by men  who are physiologically and psychologically able to experience things, and each other, outside the context of violence and exploitation. 
+The new sensibility has become, by this very token, praxis: it emerges in the struggle against violence and exploitation where this struggle is waged for essentially new ways and forms of life: negation of the entire Establishment, its morality, culture; affirmation of the right to build a society in which the abolition of poverty and toil terminates in a universe where the sensuous, the playful, the calm, and the beautiful become forms of existence and thereby the Form of the society itself." - Herbert Marcuse (An Essay on Liberation)
+
+Across the board, whether represented in the formal offerings of specific collectivist philosophies, or as can be deduced through fleshing out the logical conclusion of collectivist thinking, the participants will participate when they are agitated by the circumstances such as they to such a degree as to become mentally ill. This is the same reason why Critical Pedagogy, which has embedded itself in all of our children's curricula, was formed under the assumption of helping children make realizations that place them in a state of crisis, and then using that mental state to guide them towards transformation, as was stated by Kevin Kumashiro when he said that "Educators have a responsibility to draw students into a possible crisis". Put another way, and has been pronounced in every other area of thought based on Critical Theory (Race, Gender/Sexuality, Marxist Liberation Theology, Cultural Marxism, Intersectionality, and so on), humans must wake up to Critical Consciousness, and it's important to understand the connection between mental illness and Critical Consciousness, be them synonymous or as simply bearing a notable relationship.
+
+###### Struggle Illness
+
+Additionally, as an implemented instance of collectivist activist formation provides the means by which to struggle others and declare what their moods, behaviours, opinions and actions should be, we find an attractive opportunity for persons bearing psychopathological traits to leverage the situation to their advantage. Though this may seem simply as an opportunity for them to exercise the behaviours that they find appealing and gratifying, as programs placed in professional settings by which to enforce adoption of the collectivist ideals and adherence to their corresponding dictates, those who are the most apathetic about leveraging mechanisms of their enforcement in order to distinguish themselves in a corporate or academic environment should be expected to adopt and master the practices most readily. When ethics and morality are not simply evaluated by holding the correct opinion, but are now no longer shown to be lacking in those who don't have them due to the manner by which they can circumvent a dispassionate analysis through maximally focusing on identity and linguistically verified ideological commitment will find a new advantage that may have previously been missing. For these reasons, we should expect a quicker and more sustainable path of ascension in professional settings by those bearing psychopathological traits, such as those referred to as cluster B (especially narcissistic personality disorder of both the grandiose and vulnerable variety).
+
+Lastly, we should speak to the question of nature vs nurture in the context of psychopathology as mental illness. Though it's commonly asserted that there are inherent predispositions and that, at a certain point, it doesn't make much of a difference to ascertain precisely what moment of early life the instantiation of a disorder may have began, so long as it's early enough to be remarked as an inherent trait, there's something to be said for the acting out of identities in a group setting whereby the identity itself is expected to receive praise and glorification on the basis of its oppressed status, insight of consciousness, ethical virtues and so forth. As the identity must be made visible, the practice of constructing the aesthetic is intrinsically superficial. This, in tandem with the expectation of receiving praise and status necessarily leads to the issue of acting out narcissistic behaviour, whether through the manner in which it affects the performer, or through simply having to go through the actions which will validate the assertion of the identity.
+
+We can hypothesize about whether an individual not otherwise predisposed to such a psychopathology might come into reacting to cult initiation through the adoption of a "Critical identity" and having to perform in a manner which puts them through the motions of a narcissistic personality disorder. I cannot say whether such a person would adopt the disorder or simply appear to be affected by it, nor could I furthermore comment as to whether such a person, if having been affected by it, would come to alleviate themselves from such effects after having fallen out of favour with the collectivist cult and, furthermore, renounced the performance of the identity. One should hope for a full recovery, but it is nevertheless a complication to consider.
+
+Children are always going to be more susceptible to these malicious psychological assaults for many obvious reasons. Having less experience always leaves one with more plasticity of character and open to suggestion. Receiving messaging enticing and advising the adoption of certain world-views, particularly from those in a role of authority, but also simply from peers who are lavished with attention from other cult members, and who appear confident and manically enthusiastic about the undertaking, can play a forcefully persuasive role in pressuring one to participate. Facilitating participation even further is that the means of adoption is simply going to be the use of language. This is not just randomly composed language, but the language of cult initiation which has refined itself through many iterations, and which is composed such as to be introduced through topics of interest, popular culture, professional and academic materials, and even simply the messaging which occurs in the environments where affairs of each of these occur.
+
+The identities which correspond to various domains of cult collectivism are hierarchical in terms of their moral standing, access to power, notoriety, and, by extension, and in the view of young persons, the degree to which it corresponds with being fashionable, current, cringey, cool, and so forth. This provides the ingredients for the most powerful form of group struggle to date, which follows in the vein of Maoist ideological indoctrination and thought reform, as was best detailed by Robert Jay Lifton. Rather than struggling children about their commitment to the "People's Party" or their ability to recite the nation's tenets as related to a great endeavour of the nation, the struggle session now pervades all aspects of their learning environment. As mentioned before, when not explicitly in the curriculum, it's found in the messaging of the environment through the choice, title and descriptions of the events taking place, the programs available to students as per their proclaimed and/or designated identities, and the degree to which punishment and accountability must now take into consideration through Culturally Responsive Social Justice in education. That some children are considered more responsible in a conflict and others are punished less severely in order to address "racial equity" in spite of what might have transpired pushes a child to assume an identity which they believe will protect and serve them in asymmetrically mediated conflicts.
+
+###### Mental Healthism
+
+Preceding all of this, and something which I remember from my own public school experience of the late 80s through 90s (graduated OAC, which was equivalent to a 13th grade, in 2000) was an increased focus on mental health of students and a desire to identify children which might be suffering from a mental disorder. I saw school mates all around me come to believe they had issues with mental health, with some of them being given counseling, and others ending up with a pharmaceutical regimen by which to "address" their issue. I even had a few instances of teachers or counsellors suggesting to me that I may have a disorder because of not appearing to exhibit the normal range of behaviours that they expect from their students.
+
+Of course, it could have been the bullying or the lack of a meaningful social connection with some of my peers, which would very much constitute good reason for someone exhibiting signs of sadness or frustration, but that this is a mental health issue an that I should have it examined. I never forgot one such experience, as it seemed to me that, in an isolated environment with a teacher who had no training as a psychologist, who seemed to be dramatizing the my situation to me in such a manner that seemed inappropriate, even from my own perspective a 12 year old child, and who seemed to want to suggest to me that I was not well.
+
+Looking back on it, I think that all children have their challenges, and my personality and interests may have made me less suited to a typical classroom environment, at least insofar as it is optimal for a child's development, but that the thoughts, feelings, behaviours and so forth that I exhibited were perfectly within the range of normality, and particularly so when considering that my interests and areas of focus were perhaps not the same as those of my classmates.
+
+The tendency to diagnose normal behaviour as a mental illness has been referred to as Mental Healthism by Dr. Bruce Scott and though I don't necessarily agree with his analysis (he blames it, much in the same way as Marcuse, as being a tool by which to force people to conform to capitalism), he's certainly correct in claiming that mental health diagnostics, classifications and the increased disposition to identify opportunities to people, and particularly children, as suffering from a disorder as evidenced by their not having conformed to typical expectations, is a phenomenon which, when coupled with the focus on the need to exhibit a Critical identity associated with having a deeper consciousness about the world in which we live in, and one's special, unique or enhanced cognitive modality, creates pressure and opportunity for a child to adopt a designation of mental illness both to satisfy those interests which seek to place that designation, but also to satisfy the child's belief that they have a remarkably set of characteristics which includes qualities of character, knowledge, and a specific placement in the social hierarchy.
+
+The light form of this is the temptation to claim that one is neuroatypical or neurodivergent. While it might sound perfectly reasonable for some who feel dissimilar from their peers, such as through their interests or the manner in which they approach or absorb information, it's worth taking a moment to think about what it would take for you yourself as a child in a group setting to consider yourself as not being typical, not having a typical mind, not being plain, not being average, and so forth. Being neuroatypical could alleviate the need to be held to the same standard as your peers, such as any expectation that other people are able to verify whether or not you comprehend something. If you assume others aren't able to hold you to a standard, then you can assert anything about your capabilities without evidence, feeding your ego, believing that you may be able to circumvent evaluations that you are otherwise anxious about, and so forth. You might think that you are more evolved than the average, or part of a new evolution of the species. You could even think that it indicates you have special emotional faculties which confer special value.
+
+That isn't to say that none of those things are true, but consider whether these factors might cause you to choose to believe that you are "neuroatypical", and how this might relate to other designations, such as how it plays into "non-conforming" identities, placing you within the spectrum of oppressed peoples bearing an inherent Critical Consciousness. This is particularly important when considering how it contrasts with mere "allyship" if you happen to otherwise be someone who would be stereotyped as having a privileged or oppressor identity.
+
+###### Beyond Allyship
+
+Placing the suggestion of oppressor vs oppressed in the frame of the Master/Slave dialectic isn't just an amusing experiment, but is rather germane in light of the fact that many Critical theorists, their contemporaries, base their view on Marxist implementations of what we might call a Hegelian metaphysic (if we wish to park it there, as we could argue that it goes back further) and, as such, draw from the hypothesized framework of the Master/Slave dialectic:
+
+> "For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." - Audre Lorde
+
+!TODO: refresher?
+In fact, the whole notion that different knowledge can be found among those of different identities is based on this very concept. If not, then the Critical Theorist would relinquish their undertaking of praxis and understand that a realist endeavour of providing access to knowledge and development to be pursued universally, without any concept of class consciousness, would be the best path for resolving social conflict. Instead, the bottleneck for progress becomes the execution of transformative praxis predicated on the knowledge which has been hidden in the minds, bodies and experience of the oppressed. Experience which is verified upon their expression of the angst and turmoil to which they have been subjected.
+
+> "the great humanistic and historical task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well. The oppressors, who oppress, exploit, and rape by virtue of their power, cannot find in this power the strength to liberate either the oppressed or themselves. Only power that springs from the weakness of the oppressed will be sufficiently strong to free both." - Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed)
+
+This is why it's never enough to be an "ally". An ally can never be the one to liberate anyone at all - the oppressed, themselves, or the oppressor. Those privileged by whiteness can become allies by doing the work of learning about systemic oppression by centering and listening to the stories of minoritized peoples, but doing so is also an act of oppression which imposes demand of emotional labour on the oppressed while benefiting through becoming less ignorant and seeking a status of The Good White.
+
+With this in mind, for a cisheteronormative, able-bodied and light-skinned settler who is seen as the beneficiary of whiteness and colonialism, the most modest step towards an identity which is not limited to the singular, narrow and dead consciousness of the oppressor, is to declare the experience of some form of mental anguish, psychological difficulty or emotional turmoil. It comes through showing that they are "strong" enough to be open about their "mental health" challenge, and the fact of them not merely being a plain and typical oppressor; these characteristics are, in fact, complementary attributes, which is to say that the pain of my experience is my superpower.
+
+#### Getting Into The Substance
+
+Though we've examined some of the ways in which everyone is susceptible to ideological frameworks which incentivize one's capacity for delusion through the perceived expectation of a collective process which alleviates the perception of limitations to one's organism and experience through their body, and furthermore the insidious nature of idea parasites which become embedded in domains of thought, discussion, research and production, the principal issue here is that these implements of collectivist initiation are set in place and advocated for by those of the higher echelons of society.
+
+There is nothing new under the sun. At least, not fundamentally, though concepts and technologies develop and allow for the same forces to attain somewhat different results. The darker inclinations of human mind, allowing fear, lust for vengeance and retribution for the limitations of the order of being, set us on paths that ultimately lead to conflict where the worst forms include not just racism and othering, but desecration, defilement and genocide. As a continuation of the previous mentality which might be, at its root, something permitted because of the elevated faculties placed atop a beastly construct, we are now witnessing its unfoldment with society and infrastructure that are more complex and developed. This edified buffer permits us ever greater slack as we grow discordant with the blueprint of a resilient species and feed some more injurious possibilities.
+
+Though it's easy to assume that the dehumanizing behaviours emerge from those whose actions exhibit the greatest barbarism, it's with a bit of irony that some aspects of the descriptions brought forth by Critical theorists have some truth to them in the sense that the dehumanizing ideas and behaviours come from some of those who are perceived as the most sensible, elite and refined among us. There is some of the following at play:
+- Seeing as other and unlike
+- Noble beast
+- Controlling the unknown
+- Seeing as lesser
+
+!TODO: Flesh out how those who push policy and use political advocacy to reify identity are embodying what is accused of others when the term "settler" is thrown around. They are colonizing and reviving the spirit of slave ownership as a means to building their world.
+
+!WARNING: This section might need to be split, with some of it assigned to "theory of collectivism leading to dehumanization", which is already probably spoken of (though labelled differently) elsewhere
+
+##### Collectivist Thinking is Dehumanization
+
+Through some combination of disgust, fear, pity and a need for self-aggrandizement, the true settler takes every opportunity to wield the wand which reifies some notion of critical identity. In designating the label of human types, proto-human types, subhuman types, and so forth, they paint a story which reinforces all their claims and places a weight of burden, in the form of promises, upon all of society. Promises which, when fulfilled, make their claims true.
+
+And when I say proto-human, I mean that literally, whether it's referring to roughly half of a nation's citizens as "deplorable", commenting on the vaccine hesitant, at the moment of the greatest social and political pressure to have everyone accept the injection, as being as being anti-science, racist and misogynist, or when referring to all those who vote for Trump as being Neanderthals:
+
+> "I know it’s not fair to Neanderthals, but by calling Trump one, we only insult ourselves, since we’re all a little bit Neanderthal – especially those who voted to put him back in office." - Peter Sahlins, Professor of History Emeritus, University of California (Counterpunch: Is Trump a Neanderthal?)
+
+During the Covid-era, there were many examples of messaging which promoted the attitude of gloating and mocking someone's death if they had not received the mRNA vaccine, these included jokes from Jimmy Kimmel about how ICU beds shouldn't be given to the unvaccinated, and a statement from Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik that "Mocking anti-vaxxers’ COVID deaths is ghoulish, yes — but may be necessary", but perhaps a better example of this messaging which is effective in helping to popularize an attitude while employing a clinically chosen distance for plausible deniability, was the front page of the Toronto Star whose quotes, as captured in a photo with a collage of headlines, said the following:
+
+> "I have no empathy left for the wilfully unvaccinated. Let them die... I honestly don’t care if they die from COVID. Not even a little bit... Unvaccinated patients do not deserve ICU beds." - Toronto Star (August 29, 2021)
+
+Dehumanizing statements uttered from a standpoint which promotes collectivism isn't exclusively from those who refer to themselves as "left" or "liberal" (terms which I hesitate to use, given much of the subject matter in this book), but also include those who outright identify themselves as right wing collectivists. Though such persons are not as prevalent, at least insofar as they themselves explicitly label themselves as such (given that most claims of someone being a "right-wing Fascist" are labels being declared as a pejorative), they still can be found, especially among those who are promoting a Neo-Fascist worldview. A good example of this is Stephen Wolfe, who authored "The Case for Christian Nationalism", and who referred to "liberals" as "parasites on Christian civilization".
+
+It is worth mentioning, however, that it's more difficult to find clear, unambiguous and explicit quotes published in mainstream sources where a self-professed "conservative" or "right-wing" personality uttered a statement about their "liberals" or "left-wing" which was dehumanizing. There are some quotes from Ted Nugent and Rush Limbaugh, but it is difficult to use them as good examples because, for one, they don't identify themselves as collectivist, nor espouse collectivist principles, for another point, and particularly in the case of Rush Limbaugh, the statements are quite dated and mostly based on secondary sources commenting on his statements as heard over a radio, and lastly because their statements, especially in the case of Ted Nugent, were also directed to people claim to be "conservative" or "right-wing".
+
+Though there are many organizations, such as Media Matters, or the publicly funded "Anti-Hate Canada Network" which document cases of what they deem to be "hate", these often include lots of anonymous accounts that are unverified, or well-known political commentators who are being accused of being hateful for expressing criticism which isn't clearly dehumanizing based on the language used, but is accused as being "hateful" in the sense that the organization labeling it as hate considers it an act of hate to criticize the actions or statements of persons that it considers as belonging to an oppressed minority.
+
+This asymmetry in attempting to discover clearly dehumanizing statements which target people based on political orientation or physical characteristics from personalities or social media accounts that can be verified to be actual people is a sign of the times and though many would be tempted to interpret it such as to say "group A is hateful and group B is not", I would suggest that the entire purpose of this book is to help us understanding that the inclination to delusion and dehumanization is universal and that these temporally visible asymmetries shouldn't be expected to last.
+
+Again, though we might find good examples of individual psychopaths who are so caustic and resentful of humans that they would dehumanize others without the necessity of a collectivist mode of thining (though perhaps the "other" as a collective outside of themselves), the focus here is on combating collectivism itself which can bring absolutely anyone into viewing those outside of the collective as being less human. After all, in all collectivist thought, unless one fashions oneself a non-human, the semantics of inclusion/exclusion serve as a proxy for defining who is truly human, or worthy of being a representative or propagator of humanity.
+
+And this is the common theme because as soon as the argument has been made about the existence of an identity and a moral imperative arising from it as reality, you are now committed to that perception about an indefinite quantity of some form or another. The commitment is to a representation of the world which bears some meaning to the subject in question, yet it is also a commitment to swathes of humans; they are now constraints.
+
+##### Cheap Erasers
+
+The notion of identity is always a cheap conception, and always suggests a fragmented view of humanity where we are ultimately trapped in silos and liable to engage in conflict. Though humans can have infinite variety of experience and be developed in myriad ways, to suppose that their identities are bound to something which isn't universally available to all humans leads to the question of what makes someone truly human and or that of what makes someone a better human.
+
+We made good progress towards not falling so easily into the trap of assuming certain sets of phenotypic presentations, ethnicities, cultures and classes of humans haven't any value to offer and are unworthy of dignity. If we are to play with this idea of separating ourselves such as to make our claim to knowledge implicit through collectivist mythology, then we essentially give up on our own endeavour to better understand the world and overcome its limitations.
+
+The casualty is always our rich tapestry of different people with infinite variation and locally-tuned awareness, which is perhaps the richest aspect of life itself for a human being, and something which mostly all of enjoy when conditions are prosperous and we have the capacity to examine the world and ourselves. This is being supplanted with a model which stands for the state and which imposes a life by rule, and rule by law.
+
+When speaking to what I consider as being a cheap eraser, or the cheap erasure of actual people, what I find is a great example of this is the fact that the state has become engaged in declaring a few key identity categories for persons it refers to as Indigenous. Specifically, that it refers to Indigenous people as an original people of the land and that it refers to "Two-spirit" as an identity associated with the LGBTQ umbrella of categories which is to say that it is a Queer identity. It does this without providing deep explications, but by positing that the identity is related to both LGBTQ and post colonial discourses, which means that it draws on the rationales from each of these areas of thought, without committing itself to the semantics of either. Of course, Queer theory has already drawn from post colonial discourse in order to validate its claims about "Two-spirit" identity, which even drew criticism from Critical theorists working in the field of sociology who consider themselves intersectional Feminists and Critical Race theorists:
+
+> "I argue academics and activists need to be mindful that, even with the best of intentions, misappropriation of cultural traditions of minority groups is dangerous. This perpetuates historical practices that have silenced Indigenous experiences." - Dr. Zuleyka Zevallos (Rethinking Gender and Sexuality: Case Study of the Native American “Two Spirit” People)
+
+Though I don't agree with solutions put forward by this Critical theorist, who frames everything in modern Marxist interpretations and argues for their corresponding prescriptions, the fact that the state has gone forward with making broad, blurry and legally impactful classifications coded into their public messaging and policies of governance, and have supported the Human Rights Commission in updating their code to reference these classifications is shows how the state cannot resist new strategies for classifying and controlling the world within its reach to ever greater degrees, and this is a good example of how it will take not just good ideas but, in this case, bad ideas and create initiatives which make them even worse, just as Dr. Zevallos has warned.
+
+Any effort by the state to classify its citizens beyond equal citizens, by alleging difference among them based on history, race, sexuality, or otherwise, which inform their knowledge, morality and spirituality is nothing short of an abomination. It is obscene, tragic and evil that mankind develops concepts and systems with what's superficially presented as ever-greater sophistication to present, declare and elucidate its promise of a perfected human morality at the level of thought, which is to imply that humans are not capable of a morally robust manner of thought without intervention by the state. Presenting as the appearance and opportunity to achieve justice. Declaring itself as being the entity which can achieve something otherwise so difficult for humans on their own. Elucidating an explication of reality, experience, the substance of man, and the path to righteousness. Promising the fulfillment of our true needs and destiny.
+
+##### Citizens Who Accept Labels
+
+What can be said about citizens who accept the interoperable handles placed upon themselves and their neighbours? Is it something they really believe in? Are they just trying to get along to help with progress until such ways of thinking about their fellow countrymen are no longer necessary? What if they are to witness someone of a supposedly oppressed identity reject the label and the description of their knowledge and character?
+
+To think that any sycophantic busybody would actually acquiesce to someone else judging such things about themselves as being incorrect not likely to happen and, if they're radicalized to any degree, something they would vehemently oppose. If someone is invested in making use of the state's apparatus to elevate their moral status and attain power, there is likely nothing that will change their minds beyond a change in the means by which the power itself can be sought. That is, they will adhere to the state ideology as it changes, and at the speed at which its changes have affected their ability to manipulate their circumstances. Only the more passive, vulnerable, hapless peasants who follow through in giving their dignity, property and children's minds and bodies as fuel to the resentful flame of critical praxis, under a banner of justice, will entertain a non-conforming "oppressed" person's story in good faith. It will, however, cause cognitive dissonance and though that can help break some out of the cycle of continuously accepting a brittle mythos by which to derive a recipe for ethical life, many will simply look back towards the most popular and trusted sources to find a way to consolidate these deviating individuals.
+
+When it comes to accepting the state's designation of who and what you are, we can't know for certain whether it's faith or fear, given that the proclamation bears significance on not just themselves but the entirety of mankind, but we can try to understand the plausible paths and mechanisms for each, and build our diagnostic tools to be employed whenever we detect the disregard for principles of freedom and liberty in exchange for the promise of our somehow being made whole through the state.
+
+